"World's worst tennis pro" loses Telegraph libel case
The High Court has thrown out a defamation claim brought against the Daily Telegraph by tennis player Robert Dee, who claimed the paper had defamed him by dubbing him the “world’s worst tennis pro”.
Addleshaw Goddard partner David Engel has secured more than 30 settlements from media outlets for Dee, who had pursued them for damages on grounds of defamation. Dee won a range of payments and apologies from across the global media, including a £12,500 settlement from the BBC.
The Daily Telegraph was the only outlet prepared to challenge the claim in a bid to have it struck out. The newspaper instructed solicitor advocate David Price of David Price solicitors.
The original article, which was published in April 2008, stated: “Robert Dee, 21, of Bexley, Kent, did not win a single match during his first three years on the circuit, touring at an estimated cost of £200,000.
“But his dismal run ended at the Reus tournament near Barcelona as he beat an unranked 17-year-old, Arzhang Derakshani, 6-4, 6-3. Dee lost in the second round.”
Addleshaws argued that the article had exposed its client to ridicule and was detrimental to his ability to work in the future.
Mrs Justice Sharp this morning rejected the argument that the claim would succeed in a higher court, concluding: “It wouldn’t be immediately apparent how the claim would be likely to restore or enhance the claimant’s reputation in any event.”
She added: “The incontestably true facts are that the claimant [Robert Dee] did lose 54 matches in a row in straight sets in his first three years on the world ranking ITF/ATP tournaments on the international professional tennis circuit, and that this was the worst ever run.”
The newspaper, she continued, had “no additional obligation” to prove the Dee “is objectively the worst professional tennis player in the world”.
In a statement Dee said he was considering whether to appeal the decision.
The statement said: “Given that more than 30 newspapers and other media organisations have already apologised for making allegations similar to those published by the Telegraph, it’s disappointing that the court has decided that my case against the Telegraph isn’t strong enough to proceed to a full trial.
“It’s particularly disappointing in light of the fact that the court accepted that the Telegraph was “having a laugh” at my expense and that the article could be defamatory.”
Counsel:
Claimant: Addleshaw Goddard partner David Engel instructed One Brick Court’s Andrew Caldecott QC and 5RB’s David Sherborne for Robert Dee.
Defendant: The Daily Telegraph instructed solicitor advocate David Price of David Price Solicitors & Advocates.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (21)
Anonymous | 28-Apr-2010 3:40 pm
This is an excellent victory for the Daily Telegraph. Robert Dee essentially funded his tennis 'career' by suing newspapers.
What happens to all those newspapers which settled? Will they have any come back? They should've had more balls in the first place...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Almost the World`s Worst Tennis Player | 28-Apr-2010 4:36 pm
Does anybody have his contact details so I can arrange a game?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Apr-2010 4:37 pm
Back in the 1980's I represented a show business client who was involved in a series of interlocutory applications in the Chancery Division of the High Court. We were in court against a party who proceeded to commit perjury in fabricating highly defamatory evidence which was then reported in almost all of the UK newspapers, i.e. in every UK national newspaper and most regionals. It took a vast effort on my part and a few more days to prove that what had been reported by newspapers here and across the world was malicious falsehood and 100 per cent libel.
At this point the entire series of legal actions brought against my client collapsed when firm proof of perjury was discovered and the Attorney General was asked to investigate what had occurred. This all made front page news at the time and was on the main evening TV news. We then had an open and shut, totally proven case for libel which we could have brought against almost every newspaper in the UK, against the Press Association, the Court reporters et al. We actually only hit those responsible for creating the false evidence, which was read out in open court. At the time, a false transcript of an accurate letter was handed out to court reporters in court and reporters wrongly presumed that the transcript was accurate in that it was a true transcript of a lengthy letter, read out quickly in court by the other sides’ counsel. It wasn’t. The false transcript had been altered/created, with key words changed, to be defamatory. All reporters present had been duped and the ensuing story was so big that it spread worldwide and all of it was defamatory.
We knew we could have behaved like this little known tennis player (although my client was a very famous “pop” star). However to do so would not have been “cricket” as the press had also been duped. We have a sense of fair play and behave decently. We could have sued every paper in Britain and many abroad and we would have succeeded in every case. Instead we only went for the most offensive, which was the “Daily Mirror” then owned by Robert Maxwell, who managed to get himself involved. I went on to force the “Daily Mirror” to print an apology.
In the present case, this tennis player appears to have done the opposite to what we decided to do...and go for everyone. I think the “Telegraph” and the “Sunday Telegraph” are wonderfully edited, brilliant newspapers and I applaud their success in defending this particular case. Well done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
rogerfedererswaterbottle | 28-Apr-2010 4:40 pm
Robert Dee : What a Turnip
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The Dude | 28-Apr-2010 5:29 pm
Anonymous guy who wrote the essay... you're a legend.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Walton | 28-Apr-2010 6:19 pm
I think Mrs Justice Sharp is entirely wrong in her conclusion that the Telegraph should not have to prove objectively what they have stated as fact. If I said for example, "Hull City are the worst football team in the premiership this year", when in fact they were only second or third from bottom, it would be an untrue and potentially defamatory statement, even though they'll still get relegated regardless....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stick to Tennis not Poker - well hang on - wait a | 28-Apr-2010 8:31 pm
It is all quite clearly a game of high stakes poker that has spectacularly backfired in the face of who many more people now recognise as the 'worst tennis player in the world'.
He thought that by going to expensive lawyers who would in turn begin racking up sizeable fees all on lucrative CFAs, that this big threatening bet would defeat all, as no defendant would want to bother with fighting a small claim, especially given the risk of a very hefty adverse costs order.
No doubt prior to trial, stakes were raised higher by Addleshaw's instructing a QC and a Jnr to fight the world's worst tennis player's corner against a one-stop-shop lawyer defending the Daily Telegraph.
Well done to the Daily Telegraph for calling the worst tennis player's bluff.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Apr-2010 8:13 am
The picture shows that his grip is very poor
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Apr-2010 10:00 am
54 matches in a row...haha
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
RichMummy&DaddyMeThinks | 29-Apr-2010 10:52 am
If a litigator lost 54 cases in a row, he would (hopefully) be out of a job. If an F1 driver came last 54 times in a row, he would be out of a job. In either case one would hope they would realise their uselessness and 'seek new challenges'. How on earth is this numpty (please don't sue me) still playing on the pro circuit?!?!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment